05 November 2011 10:19 PM

We have failed to keep faith with the men who died for us

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

Some actions ought to be unthinkable. Even the lowest, dimmest lout ought to know that you do not defile monuments to the dead. Till a few years ago, the worst crook in Britain would have stopped himself from ripping a bronze plaque off a war memorial.

Those who claim that this country is not falling to pieces need to explain why such crimes are now becoming common.

Something has disappeared from the hearts of the people who do this. They are different from any generation that lived before. Let me explain.

Long ago, a retired Serviceman said to me that the least anyone could do, when he saw a war memorial, was to pause and read some of the names on it. It was a tiny thing compared to what the dead had done, but it would in some way help to make their deaths worthwhile.

I have tried to follow this advice. I read the names, often seeing several members of one family listed on a small village cross and forcing myself to imagine what this must have meant.

But above all I recall that these were all the best of their generation at every level, of all classes and all political beliefs, hundreds of thousands of lost fathers who never had children, or never saw their young grow to adulthood, a great legion of lost craftsmen, lost scientists, lost engineers, lost inventors, lost teachers, lost poets, lost architects, lost statesmen, whose absence still haunts this country almost a century later.

I read the inscriptions, which now reach across to us from a time so different that it is astonishing to think that it is in fact so close. Some are reproachful or unsettling – the line ‘Live thou for England – these for England died’ goes straight to the heart of the matter.

The one that haunts me most of all is in Fleetwood in Lancashire, which states fiercely: ‘Principles do not apply themselves.’

Another writes of ‘those who, at the call of King and Country, left all that was dear to them, endured hardness, faced danger, and finally passed out of sight of men by the path of duty and self-sacrifice, giving up their own lives that others might live in freedom... let those that come after see to it that their names are not forgotten’.

Many are fine works of art – the mud-encrusted soldier reading a letter from home on Platform 1 at Paddington Station is one of the great sculptures of the 20th Century. They were almost all created and paid for by people who belonged to the older tradition of art and poetry, in my view far superior to the silly chaos of what followed.

And now they are being pillaged, demolished, smashed, stripped, overturned and desecrated by people who probably cannot even read what is written on them and would not care if they could.

If that is not a fit subject for a moral panic, I do not know what is. These metal thieves are no better than grave-robbers, and we have bred and raised them among us. These sombre and thoughtful shrines are not glorifications of war, but memorials to beloved people who went to their deaths in the belief that they were saving civilisation.

It seems that they failed.

Easy divorce equals lost children - it's a simple equation

When will they make the connection? More than 40 years of divorce on demand, and nobody can work out how to ensure that the child victims of marriage break-up stay in touch with their fathers or their grandparents.

Nor can they devise a workable or fair system for child support.

As for the laws on custody and property after divorce, it is amazing that any man has the courage to get married when he knows what might happen to him if things go wrong.

And of course there is the subsidy for fatherless families. You don’t have to take my word for the effects of this, by the way. Listen to Adele Adkins, the singer, who presumably knows a bit about her generation.

She recently recalled that ‘the ambition at my state school was to get pregnant and sponge off the Government’, adding: ‘That ain’t cool.’

Could this mass condemnation of so many children to broken homes and/or the absence of fathers have anything to do with this week’s Barnardo’s survey, showing that nearly half of us think the young are becoming feral? I think it could.

Clooney's right: Bullyboy 'fixers' are the real rulers

Why are political professionals so foul-mouthed? The real stars of George Clooney’s clever and enjoyable new film about politics, The Ides Of March, are the backroom fixers and spin doctors who turn rather average individuals into TV superstars and propel them into office.

And they swear all the time about everything. I am sure this is completely realistic, from what I have seen of their real-life equivalents here.

I think they do this to prove that they have power over their underlings and can humble them without risking retaliation. Using dirty language to someone who cannot answer back is a form of showing off.

Interestingly, they often swear at the politicians who are supposed to be their bosses. Because, of course, the smiley Blair or Cameron figures who are sold to the public are not really in charge. The backroom fixers, who create them and mould them, represent the real power, which in the U.S. and increasingly in Britain comes from big-money backers. As Bob Dylan sang long ago ‘Money doesn’t talk, it swears’.

If we want to get control of our country back, we have to devise a way of liberating politics from such people. Nationalising the existing parties, by giving them taxpayers’ money, is definitely not the answer.

But doesn’t it say so much about the Labour and Tory parties, that if you held a flag day for either of them it would raise a few old Spanish coins and some buttons? They have to rely on big donors because they long ago deserted their roots. Why is it considered so eccentric to say it is time to get rid of them and start again?

Feeble Frank is going to pot

Parents and teachers who want to stop children taking illegal drugs get little help from the Government.

The feeble website ‘Talk to Frank’ (which we pay for through our taxes) more or less assumes that drug-taking is normal, with lots of matey, slang-infested chat.

A much better resource for parents and schools, ‘Drugs – it’s just not worth it’, is now available from www.cannabisskunksense. co.uk. I strongly recommend it.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks Mr Wooderson, …btw, I wasn’t referring to you personally (but of the ‘many’) when I spoke of brainwashing...

…my 'left-economically', 'right-socially' orientation was not referring to the broad spectrum of political dogma as a whole - only to the seemingly non-visible, ultra-, or might that be infra-bandwidth, which libertarianism occupies.

I consider the crux of any solution to our problems to be an economic one (not, I hasten to add, because of any simplistic belief in trickle-down economics), and for me Distributism (a libertarian-socialist variant) seems to hold many of the answers. Times will be tough - because without real economic change, real jobs, paying real wages wii continue to become more and more scarce. We cannot win head on against what China and India has to offer under pure capitalist competition. That is why I believe that the economic system is broken.

It is hard to see any real distinction between the Left and the Right in the realm of economics. The ‘Chinese experiment’ has blown the lid on that particular lie. Of course many are too close to our own non-democratic, pro-big-business ‘EU experiment’ to notice that before very long these two great experiments will be indistinguishable from each other. So called free markets don’t exist, they are in fact continually being interfered with by government/vested interests. This is why capital’ism’ is so aptly named; it being merely another ‘ism’ and control structure, not unlike socialism. The intended use is to help engineer outcomes. But their shared statist dogma will always result in failure. For me, the question should be about challenging the level and types of coercion/control inbuilt in any economic system. i.e. can an individual lead an independent life without government interference. I am dismayed by those who fail to see how an outcome of economic liberty helps also enshrine other ideals such as moral and other personal freedoms.

Historically, the wealthiest nations were those with the highest productivity. But in this globalized world, big business does not want ‘centres of excellence’. Big business helps retain its power by moving work and jobs around the world. Jobs are ‘outsourced’ and business costs are ‘offset’ to other willing and emerging countries who scramble to provide the new infrastructure ‘for free’ to big business. We have the double whammy of increasing business power and decreasing political power. Politics used to be the driver for change. But today, politicians are subservient to world markets. Only nation states can control the amount and the quality of jobs that exist within their borders for their own citizens. Creating sufficient wealth and jobs is the difficult bit….but not as difficult as some argue it would be....and a new economic model, one without the emphasis on consumer led demand and an ever increasing GDP, would create new benefits.

@ Joshua Wooderson - perhaps "weak" wasn't the correct word. "Inconsistent" would have been better. Although I think you are missing the point on the "innocents might die" argument vis a vis capital punishment.

If I were to be convinced by the all the arguments in relation to the death penalty (I am not of course, but let's hypothesise) but I opposed it solely on the grounds that wrongly convicted people may be executed, it would be inconsistent of me to oppose capital punishment if I supported any other policy which had an unintended consequence of innocent people being killed. Mr.Hitchens uses the example of the government's transport policy, where many people die in road crashes each year - not the intention of the policy (nor is it the intention of capital punishment to execute wrongly convicted people) but an inevitable consequence (the same applies to capital punishment) nonetheless.

I understand this example, but many do not. If I may, I would offer this example. Suppose a country - let's say Iran (this country seems to be the obvious choice at the moment) - embarked on a program of developing a nuclear weapon with the expressed intention of launching it at London. And let's suppose this weapon was almost complete, the Iranian government was adamant that once complete, it was hellbent on launching it at London, and all diplomatic / political efforts had proven fruitless. And let's just suppose this weapon was being developed at a site within a built-up civilian area - let's say central Tehran - which would inevitably suffer innocent civilian casualties if we bombed (however precisely or "surgically") the site in order to destroy such a development. Would we be justified in bombing such a site, knowing that innocent people may die in the process? Given these circumstances, I would reluctantly argue yes, so I therefore cannot consistently oppose the death penalty purely on the grounds that innocent people may die as an unintended consequence of that policy, given my support for the (hypothetical) policy of bombing Iran under these extreme circumstances knowing that innocents would inevitably die.

I agree that there is a moral difference between pursuing a policy which, by definition, deliberately slays everyone to whom it applies in cold blood, knowing that there is a viable alternative (capital punishment), and one which accidently kills a small percentage of its participants (transport policy). But that's the point - my opposition to capital punishment is based on grounds other than innocent people might die.

@ Alan Thomas - I'm unaware of these pilot schemes in New Zealand and the Isle of Man, but I'm all for a ban on tobacco in prisons. Primarily, prisoners are there to be punished for their crimes and if possible, to be rehabilitated, not to be indulged in their personal luxuries. I'm all for most things which make prison a significantly less desirable place to be in - I'm not in favour of torture or degradation, though. I think it's possible to implement a tough, stern regime without recourse to either.

Sorry I didn't get back to you. You say, 'I am socially on the right, but economically on the left' - isn't the more usual libertarian position to be socially left/liberal (apart from on matters like crime) and economically right/laissez-faire?

I'm certainly not 'brain-washed into thinking that anything right-of-centre is morally dubious' - I have some sympathy for the libertarian position, and agree with libertarians on most social issues.

Capital punishment, however, makes for a very stale cake.

Dermot Doyle,

You write: 'Overloaded bookshelves of analysis of murderers motives have failed to prevented one single murder'. Perhaps that's because those analyses haven't been acted on?

Also, calling criminals 'atheist thugs' is a bit of a cheap shot. They're atheist in that they don't subscribe to a religion, yes, but they're not humanists. They're immoral, or even amoral, and that's the problem, not their alleged atheism.

beatpoet,

You do a disservice to your position when you say that opposing capital punishment because an innocent might die is an argument that's been shown to be weak. Its greatest weakness, in my view, is that it rests on the assumption that innocent life is much more valuable than the life of a murderer - but this obviously isn't the weakness that most proponents of the death penalty point to.

Mr. Hitchens' argument is frankly absurd. There are any number of differences between the state's executing an innocent person and people's dying because of its transport policy. The latter is, at worst, indirect killing, and besides, deaths on the road don't undermine public confidence in criminal justice.

And if it's thought that we're justified in executing innocents for the sake of the (highly dubious) deterrent factor, are we not justified in *deliberately* executing innocent people to deter? I doubt many people would be prepared to say that we are.

On the subject of prison conditions and deterrents I have previously supported Peter Hitchens' idea of a total ban on tobacco in prisons. I am aware of 'pilots' taking place in New Zealand, and closer to home, on the IoM. One major attraction is the fact that such a deterrent has a wide catchment and is reasonably cost free in terms of application. I am, of course, aware of limited success in preventing drug use in prisons, but I wonder if you would include such a ban in your thoughts on prison regimes.

@ Dermot Doyle - "Are you saying there is a legion of idiots abroad without understanding of humanity?" In a word, yes. Not that their ignorance excuses their actions. I merely used this anecdote to demonstrate that capital punishment would not deter such people.

You say I offer no solutions and speak of "apologist nonsense". I'm sorry, but where did I apologise for criminal behaviour? Pointing out that many criminals would not be deterred by the death penalty does not amount to an apology for their crimes. No solutions? I made my view clear on austere, stern prisons and lengthy sentences. So I have solutions, they are just different from your's. Incidentally, this is something I've noticed about the "hang 'em, flog 'em brigade" - anyone who opposes the death penalty must be a squeamish, weak-willed, hand-wringing, criminal-hugging liberal and that capital punishment is the only answer to crime and criminals. Well, they aren't and it isn't.

I'm not saying that the argument in favour of capital punishment is not valid. I used to be in favour of it. But it has weaknesses - the main one being that the evidence in support of its main function, namely deterrence, is not conclusive. I believe that if the courts handed out lengthy sentences, including locking up the perpetrators of the worst crimes for the rest of their lives, and our prisons had basic surroundings and facilities (and simple food and drink), you'd see a pretty sharp decrease in crime. This also has the advantage of being reversible in the event of a wrongful conviction - capital punishment is irreversible (and, yes, I accept that opposing capital punishment purely on the grounds that an innocent person might die is weak, as Mr.Hitchens has pointed out in the past but I think it is valid to take it into account in the overall debate, along with other factors).

I don't see how my views "make allowances for the murderers and rapists etc and give them a way out of their heinous behaviour" or that it's "rolling out the red carpet for the wrongdoers." Locking up a child-killer, for example, for the rest of their life in a building with basic surroundings and a stern regime are hardly the words of a soppy liberal, are they?

Regarding your point about the parent of a murdered child - I hope I never find out, but I can just about understand why some would feel no hatred for the perpetrator. I think such a loss would be of such devastation that they would be incapable of feeling anything other than the unimaginable pain they would undoubtedly be suffering. On the other hand, it's entirely understandable, natural even, as you suggest, that a parent of a murdered child would feel intense hatred for the person(s) responsible, and I certainly wouldn't blame them for feeling that way.

My apologies for the misunderstanding sir. I see why you're in no position to make further comment.

I'd also like to say that I'm not strictly a non-believer - although looking at my post again it would appear that way, I meant that I don't believe that wrongdoers will be judged by a God in the next life.

1. The word 'MY' to emphasize my personal feelings on the subject matter.
2 & 3. The words 'PIDGEON MURDERAAH' in reply to Joshua - who I hasten to add has conducted himself in a far more exemplary fashion than yourself - in referral to Steven Frys portrail of General Melchett.

@ Avid Fan - I said neither of those things, I said I didn't want to comment on such cases. I'm still a serving officer and to be totally honest, I'm not entirely sure if I'm allowed to make comments on named individual cases. So given my uncertainty on this, I'd rather not, in case I say something I'm not supposed to!

Actually, the question, "Is that because you are still connected or bound by oath to the police or because you have no conviction in your beliefs?" is a rather pointless one, if you don't mind my saying. I mean, who would answer that question with, "it's because I have no conviction in my beliefs"? If your view is that I have no convictions in my beliefs, then say so. I won't be offended.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have brought God into the debate. I am a believer, but I'm not devoutly religious - I certainly don't live my life in strict accordance with any religious code. I was merely pointing out that I take comfort in my belief that if justice isn't served in this world, it'll certainly be served in another. Not much comfort to a non-believer such as youself, I admit.

"As his friend died in front of him,...he seemed unable to comprehend that sticking a knife into someone was liable to result in death."

beatpoet

As Sergeant Dixon would put it: I aint avin that mate. Are you saying there is a legion of idiots abroad without understanding of humanity? Tellingly you offer nothing in the way of solutions, just an appeal to a higher authority these atheist thugs simply laugh at.
Nothing personal, but this apologist nonsense is our biggest problem. Overloaded bookshelves of analysis of murderers motives have failed to prevented one single murder as far as I can see. Clear the bookshelves, sack the psychiatrist, and finance a billboard campaign that gives a clear statement along with a date about a new zero tolerance policy.
Its not a question of relish as Mr Thomas has suggested, or, as you suggest, retribution that somehow benefits my desires. Rather a desire for natural justice, that is the bedrock of any civilised society.
Are we forever to make allowances for the murderers and rapists etc and give them a way out of their heinous behaviour, or do you see your way of thinking somehow bringing results for those who suffer at the sharp end?
There is no dichotomy more profound than a parent of a slain innocent saying they have no feelings of hate toward the perpetrator, while at the same time their inner spirit is devastated beyond repair by the loss of one held so dear. It flies in the face of natural human emotions. Soppy liberal indoctrination anyone? Balderdash like this offers nothing to victims while rolling out the red carpet for the wrongdoers. We're all off to hell in a handcart.

Incidentally I am no Bible expert (though I do enjoy reading it), I look up references relating to things I remember, or have heard said, that are relevant to the subject under discussion. Its not difficult. It took just moments to home in on Numbers 32:23 where the wonderful: "be sure your sin will find you out." can be found, though this is more Jewish than Christian.
At risk of venturing off topic: what a tragedy for civilisation that the early Christians destroyed that wonderful Jewish fountain of wisdom accumilated over centuries through trial and error? Forcing us to learn the same lessons all over again (did you know that evidence obtained by torture was outlawed in Judaism before Christ was born? nobody told the inquisitors that 1500 years later did they?).
Similar to Mr Hitchens giving ugly facts about WW2 that destroy the myth of our total rightness in the face of unprovoked evil, would the true story of the emergence of Christianity make him feel uncomfortable about his faith? Sorry Mr Hitchens (if your still around) but you started it.

You say you won't or can't comment on individual cases - the oft quoted phase uttered by the authorities to the media when discussing such matters. Is that because you are still connected or bound by oath to the police or because you have no conviction in your beliefs?

I admit fully that my views are retribution based amongst other things. I also don't believe that an omnipotent being is awaiting to judge us on our behavior here on earth. I know this is amateur but, if that were so, why would said sentient being allow such vile acts in the first instance?
Are we to believe that such acts are allowed to take place solely for the purpose of god to be able to judge us in the afterlife?

I favour it mostly because I have always despised tribalism, and more recently I have grown fearful of our ‘professional political elite’. Why would any sensible person entrust power to those who would change their belief on the spin of a six-pence. I am surprised that many more do not subscribe to libertarianism. I suppose at the present time many have been brain-washed into thinking that anything right-of-centre is morally dubious or even just a small step away from skin-head politics. Under the libertarian banner I am socially on the right, but economically on the left - so affording me the luxury of choosing the policies which delight!

To quote David Brent is not an admission of defeat. On the contrary, I am alluding to the down-to-earth common sense approach to politics which I favour. So, for me that does not invalidate the philosophy. And yes, as you say, Brent also quotes Dolly Parton, so if you’ll allow me, ill show how her sentiment also fits the agenda: ‘If you want the rainbow (a just society?) you got to take the rain (harsh punishment?) too’. Many on this blog take themselves too seriously - I try a light-hearted approach. But how else does one stay sane when the current societal morass was predicted (by many) some 10-20 years ago. Alas, I suspect it will take another 10-20 years for today’s cracks in society to become full blown fissures. At that point, we wont have the luxury of ‘fiddling while Croydon burns’. Instead, I favour a so called ‘harsh medicine’ approach now, rather than wait for the dystopian forced-fed remedies that will be administered to West in the all too near future.

Please bear in mind that although yours and my approach might appear very similar - as is true of most things in life, the devil is in the detail. So whereas you appear to be able to dismiss harsh-punishment (death penalty) as being perhaps an ‘icing on the cake’, I consider it to be crucial to the success of the recipe.

I can only refer to my comment in respect of 'RELISH'.
I put it in 'caps' due to your somwhat hysterical use of it over the course of this debate. I could have added 'glee', but relish just about says it all. No response yet to your original invitation, I see.

@ mikebarnes - oh come on! "Beatpoet"! Surely a man of your intelligence could have worked that one out! I'm actually doubting the wisdom of "coming out", as it were. I don't use my real name for fear of saying something that could get me into bother - although being a moderate sort, I don't think I ever have. I think it's bad, though, that I have to think this way - maybe Mr.Hitchens and others could stop heckling pseudonym-users and consider that they might have good reasons for using screen names. Although I admit, in the end, it does boil down to a lack of courage on my behalf - I've faced down thugs with knives before, but my superior officers are another matter! They could really hurt me!

I've replied to Dermot Doyle about why I'm against capital punishment, so I won't waste time repeating it here. What I would say is that I'm not suggesting in any way that being under the influence of anything excuses crime (unless you can prove that someone plied you with it, without your knowledge), and the courts (certainly here in Scotland, anyway) don't accept this as an excuse. My point was about deterrence - those who are out of their minds on whatever are unlikely to be deterred by capital punishment, in my view.

I'd say technology and modern forensic techniques have changed the police since I joined 19 years ago. Overall, for the better. I'd also say that crimes and incidents are dealt with far more professionally than they were when I joined, and there's much more pressure on cops to perform well. Where I think there could be big improvements is by drastically reducing the amount of office-based police officers and returning them to operational duties - there's not many who would disagree with that.

Loved your Welsh accent, by the way - "yer honour" and "murrrder". Brilliant! Straight from the valleys!

It's not so much the general message in Avid fans' recent posts that I find difficult to swallow, it's the sheer relish, or should I say RELISH, that clearly accompanies his thinking. However, I'm glad he's found a friend in need.

Why on earth should I be ashamed of anything I've posted on this site. Is it because you happen to disagree with my views?
Well that's fine by me, it's your right to have a differing point of view & indeed to express it. By all means, smear, call names & berate me. It what you liberals are best at after all. But my friend you've crossed the line by bringing my son into the equation.

I always have & always will be honest & truthful with my son & will never try to force my views or beliefs upon him, unlike my own trotskyist father who cared only for his own opinion & thought that anyone who disagreed was 'stupid'. That's just what you want to hear from your own father when you're 7, maybe 8 years old - when I saw him that is.

Like all of your kind old man, he thought - & still believes - that he is the centre of the universe. Well my eyes are wide open & I've no doubt in my mind that for all of your pious posturing & self-righteous lecturing you're nothing but a typical left-wing fascist & woe beside anyone with the audacity to think differently to your papal self.

@ Dermot Doyle - my delay in replying is due to a hectic 4 days at work!

I actually don't care "for the prospects of the perpetrators of capital crime" at all. I've just changed my view on the effectiveness of capital punishment over the last couple of years. Most of the murders, attempted murders, stabbings, etc with which I've dealt have been committed by people under the influence of something. I don't see how capital punishment would reduce this, given that they're hardly likely to stop and think about it.

For those who would be deterred, I believe that austere prisons and lengthier sentences would achieve this - I've actually spoken with criminals who have told me this. It's also reversible, if the courts get it wrong.

I recall a story I was told by a colleague about a male who stabbed one of his drinking/drug-taking buddies, over a petty argument. As his friend died in front of him, his reaction was such that he seemed unable to comprehend that sticking a knife into someone was liable to result in death. I'd guess that he's seen, and carried out, several knife attacks in the past which hadn't resulted in death (due to the skill of surgeons, a good point that Peter Hitchens has made previously - I'd also add the skill and dedication of ambulance crew to this) and was shocked that this one had done so. Given this mentality, would capital punishment, or indeed anything, deter this? Just as an aside, it might be worth mentioning that, in my experience, those who carry out serious violent crime usually do so against their own kind, for want of a better phrase. It tends to be over a dispute (often drugs), or in retaliation to another stabbing or whatever. I'm not in any way saying this is excusable, nor that it's impossible for a purely innocent person to be such a victim, I'm just trying to help you, and other contributors, feel a bit safer! I doubt if I'll succeed.

Re your last paragraph, I don't really want to comment on (named) individual cases, but I think it's highly unlikely that those who are twisted enough to kill children are going to be deterred by anything. Your views on this seem to be about retribution. Again, I don't agree. I also happen to believe that capital punishment debases society as a whole - if we start making exceptions (child killers being the obvious choice) then more exceptions would undoubtedly follow. Where would it all end? I believe that a far higher authority than any man will ultimately judge us all, anyway. I think the bible says, "Be sure your sin will find you out." Although I don't remember which book - maybe you could help.

as a father myself...", is that when your kids grow up, if they haven't already, they don't stumble across some of their father's posts that have appeared here in recent days.

Posted by: Alan Thomas | 20 November 2011 at 08:19 PM

Perhaps, Mr Thomas, but that would be infinitely better than meeting any of the twisted sadistic scum infesting our society that "Avid fan" is at least trying to do something about.
Let me ask you: do you believe it is safe to allow your children to (for example) go for a walk in the countryside, and play anywhere they liked, or wander in the park after 6pm without a guardian in presence? If not?, why not? What sort of society prevents these childrens rights? Indeed these activities should be regarded as rights, and not: too dangerous. Why should we, as a society, put up with this restriction imposed on us by bad people? Do you just want to lie down and take it Mr Thomas?
There was no such thing as the school run once over, so I wonder what brought about that little phenomenon? Was it a response to the behaviour of the very sort of people, with evil in their hearts, that all parents fear their children may encounter.
The truth is, always has been, and always will be, that in this life there is good and bad. Good and bad in just about equal measure actually, its part of human nature.
If you look again at your line above, there is even badness in that Mr Thomas. Your words reveal you feel you are a better person than the man you are addressing, superior to him in fact. An attitude that places you on the slippery slope, for a lot of very bad things have happened as a result of some people believing they were "better" than others.

The innocent and the weak are depending on society to protect them from the horrors of the likes of Robert Black , or at least ensure that when they are detected, proper measures are taken to stop their evil ways in their tracks. Anything less is a neglect of duty to those who rely on authority for security. The liberal left who believe that they can eradicate badness from society in some Utopian dream, are (like the wind turbine lobby) living in cloud cuckoo land. It will always be here, its a fact of life, and we have to deal with it.

Incidentally, the Glasgow cop "beatpoet" never came back with what he thinks we should do with evil scum like Black.

All I hope, bearing in mind your earlier "... as a father myself...", is that when your kids grow up, if they haven't already, they don't stumble across some of their father's posts that have appeared here in recent days.

"It seems you and I are vying for the title of nastiest jailer of the year."

No 'seems' about it - your recent comments have surely brought you home as joint winners! The only surprise, considering the gathering, is the paucity of riders in this particular race. Still, I guess congratulations are in order.

Whether you can reconcile libertarian beliefs with the death penalty depends on which brand of libertarianism you follow, I suppose. I've come across libertarians before who've said that the right to life is inalienable, and therefore may not be taken by the state under any circumstances.

But presumably you're more of the John Stuart Mill school of libertarianism i.e. broadly utilitarian. It's doubtful to me whether the harm principle and anti-interventionism in general can be justified on entirely utilitarian grounds, but supporting the death penalty under such a system isn't incoherent (Mill certainly supported it).

Quoting David Brent would normally be an admission of defeat, I'd have thought, but I expect that quote isn't attributable to him originally. He also memorably quotes Dolly Parton, as you probably remember.

A 12% reduction may not be anything to write home about, but the point is that it's the best method, at least of those that have been tried. And I don't see why the fact that different European countries have different judicial systems should make a difference, since, as far as I can tell, the analysis was not a comparison between countries, but rather within countries - in all of which, it seems, rehabilitation proved more effective.

Anyway, I don't think your proposed solution and mine are that different, as both are focused on using the justice system to alter criminals' behaviour through means other than the rather simplistic strategy of deterrence.

Avid fan,

Of course it was stupid of him to do that. I still don't think he deserved to end up in hospital. Nor do I think that the fact that certain sections of society would no longer complain about criminal justice if it were made harsher is necessarily a strong reason for doing so. Also, I won't be at all offended if I'm not invited to the public flogging and barbecue gathering; I doubt I'd keep the food down.

mikebarnes,

I think the point is that 'near miss' suggests (to me, anyway) that it was nearly a miss, but wasn't. I suppose what it actually means is a miss that was near. So it's not really grammatically inexplicable, but it's perhaps slightly counter-intuitive.

"Your comments, especially those about extracting information from the likes of Robert Black are in accordance with my own feelings."

Posted by: Avid fan. | 18 November 2011 at 11:34 AM

Hello again Avid fan. It seems like you and I are vying for the title of nastiest jailer of the year, much to the horror of JW and gang, who so want to cuddle murderers into submission, believing they deserve that second chance their victims can never get. Lets go back to the tried and trusted ways, and clear vision of right and wrong, and abandon this change in natural justice advocated by the wets.
As Peter Hitchens said (on another thread): "I think that change, and those who keenly advocate it, must be treated with doubt and some suspicion. In whose interests is it? Will its claimed benefits really come about? Have we carefully considered its unintended consequences?"

Yes indeed Mr Wooderson, how carefully have you considered the unintended consequences?, for it is no good quoting stats, when, for example, murder has been redefined, so that most murders are not called murders anymore.

Your comments, especially those about extracting information from the likes of Robert Black are in accordance with my own feelings.

As another example let's take foul nursery worker Vanessa George, convicted of paedophilia against some 30 toddlers entrusted to her. She refuses to name those whom she abused therefore adding to & prolonging the anguish of those parents who's child may be involved.
Now I'd personally use physical means to extract the names from her (should take me about 5 minutes, if that!) But realistically, why couldn't the authorities use a truth serum - ı.e. sodium pentathol to gather the truth & end the suffering & uncertainty that those families involved will continue to bear as long as the filthy monster remains silent?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.